BuzzerBeater Forums

Split training between league games and cup/scrimmage. League games work as currently do (position and minute requirements).

Cup/scrimmage training can be a different type, and more position flexibility, but still requires the same minutes.

This idea is interesting!
Even if the training for league games and cup/scrimmage games is set to the same type, this will have different influences on training only current main players and only young players.

For example, when there is no cup game and the team has only 5 main players, the situation (training main players) will be the same as in the current training system.
It will not move toward a "the strong remain strong in the short term" direction in the top league. (It can be referenced in this thread (325503.33).)

Not to mention, the situation is different when starting the main players in a cup game compared to a league game.
Please let me say it again, this idea is interesting.

Last edited by little Guest at 11/7/2024 1:15:36 AM

If we feel that players’ skill points are too high, could removing changes that increase training speed (such as youth trainers or team facilities) be an option?

And, how about lowering the potential a bit?
Has this been discussed before?
Though I guess anyone's first reaction to this would definitely be opposition.

How many players should a single user be able to train to those different division levels?

This question seems like a simple one, but when I try to answer it, I find that I don't know how to respond.
It feels like it could be very broad, or that certain conditions need to be assumed, but I'm not sure.

Something suddenly come to my mind.
When BB-Marin increased the age of degeneration by one year in season 65, does it mean he discovered some phenomenon in the statistical data that required this change?
For example, could it be that the number of players relative to the number of active players is shrinking? (I'm not asking for an answer.)

Then, even with the same training mechanism, if the overall behavior of players differs, it might lead to some variation in the results.
For example, teams that only buy main players from the transfer market and do not engage in "producing" players might have different numbers, which could also affect the ratio of player numbers to active player counts.
So, how should we determine how many players a team can train?
It feels not only complicated but also uncertain where to start.
Does anyone have a solution?

BB hopes to let top league teams reduce the number of outstanding players trained (to replace aging players) in order to enhance match competitiveness.
Otherwise, teams could more easily overcome the generational succession and stay in the top league.

BB also hopes to let top league teams reduce the increase in on-field strength due to training in order to enhance match competitiveness.
Otherwise, teams behind will struggle to catch up in terms of on-field strength, leading to a situation where the strong remain strong in the short term (relative to generational succession).

...... can also refer to these articles (273660.21)(273660.38)(273660.39) by BB-Marin or this summary of opposing views (323722.8).

There is another one.

If we could more easily have a team as we wish, then the game would become more reliant on mastering "the most effective player skill distribution," rather than the various efforts made to build the team.

Taking training 2 players and allowing different players to train different skills as an example of more easily having a team as we wish.
In the current training system, training 2 players often requires compromise, either focusing on one player or finding a balance between them.
But if different players could train different skills with no restrictions, like the restrictions in this thread (319331.191) for the second type of training, training these 2 players would be similar to training 2 players individually, allowing you to develop each player into the desired form.